The bearded man does not make any points against the Suttas and just goes on a rant against Ajahn Brahm. To me, it sounds a lot like a Red Herring, Guilt-by-association, and maybe also a couple of other logical fallacies such as ad hominem, for using the b.s. term (how profound).

Buddhism does not require acceptance of Ian Stevensons' works, nor any of the other statements made in the clips from Ajahn Brahm. They were just that monk's views and points. They might be weak, but don't say anything one way or the other as to the value or validity of Buddhism.

I have seen this before. Same stuff that others have put out and he is just as rude about it as the others. Clearly he is mad that he didn't turn out to be a Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, people whose idea are worth a look and a little respect. It's sad to see seniors suffer after such a long life of suffering.

A) No truly understanding Buddhist would make such demands on Buddhism. The only deviation from Buddhism is a closed mind and pretending to know things we can/do not.

B) There is no "reincarnation". We don't wake up again and get to relive new lives. This is probably the saddest perversion of the path. That we would be born again would be senseless considering the doomed fate of the planet earth when the sun inevitably swallows it up. There is only a recycling of materials and forces, a "remanifestation" of sorts that exists seemingly independent of your own consciousness; the water in the waves, if you will.